Re: [Nmh-workers] Suggested new switches for sortm: -recon and --norecon

[norm]

Ralph Corderoy <address@hidden> writes:
>Hi David,
>
>> > sort(1) has this functionality.  It's -c for check.  -check?  Don't
>> > see why we should deviate.
>>
>> sortm already has a -check, for a slightly different purpose.  It was
>> recently added, though, so maybe its meaning could be changed?
>
>Ah, OK.
>
>sortm always issues a warning for each message that is missing a
>"Date:" field, has a "Date:" field that cannot be parsed, or has a
>format error in any header field.  With the -check switch, sortm
>inhibits all modifications to the folder if there are any such
>messages, and exits with non-zero status.  With the default of
>-nocheck, sortm sorts messages with a missing or invalid "Date:"
>field using their file modification times.
>
>-wantdate?

I agree. To be explicit:

Given that sortm is closer to sort than to make and your observation that sort
has -c, --check for what I suggested as -recon, it would make sense for

        -wantdate to mean what -check now means

        -check to mean what I proposed for -recon

That is:


        -wantdate would mean that it was an error and that no messages would
        be moved if any relevant message did not have a date field that could
        be parsed or had a a format error in any header field.

        -check would mean don't move any messages


    Norman Shapiro